Letter in the Oct issue regarding the '69 Nova

[Brian Huck]

I think the reply to Alan Bohach's letter regarding the review(s) of the Revell '69 Nova was unnecessarily dismissive. I agree that his letter is a bit extreme itself, but he DOES have a point. While the body in the new kit is relly nice with regard to proportions and the overall appearance, to say that Revell "nailed it" implies that they got all the details right as well, and they didn't. Some of these incorrect details are more minor than others and some will be easier to fix than others, but the fact remains that they are incorrect, and they detract (perhaps on a subjective level) from the kit.

That said, I DO think the new kit is pretty outstanding overall, and a BIG improvement over the long-in-the-tooth AMT '71. I look forward to seeing what other versions of the Nova Revell issues. I just think that innacuracies of the type that used to be pointed out in kit reviews are nowadays being glossed over or ignored completely in newer reviews, and a person shouldn't be brushed off for pointing that out, or for pointing out said inaccuracies.

I know I missed what was surely a LOT of internet discussion of this kit when it first came out, but I just picked up the magazine the other day and thought I'd comment on the letter.

[mikemodeler]

Brian,

Welcome to the forum and be sure to subscribe to the magazine so you don't miss out on any thing related to our hobby.

In regards to the letter / reply on the Revell '69 Nova, you are correct that Revell's new kits does have its flaws. Those flaws have been debated here and I would suggest you take the time to read through some of the posts to see what has been said.

While we would all love to have EXACT scale reproductions EVERY time the manufacturers' bring an all-new kit to market, reality is that it isn't always possible. I know that steps are taken to ensure accuracy, but sometimes things have a way of falling through the cracks. Some mistakes are inexcusable, some inevitable.

I personally don't let most kit problems get to me and if they do, I just put the kit aside for another day when I am in a better frame of mind.

Mike

[Bowtienutz]

I don't think it was. In fact, I think, I think Gregg is to be commended for standing up for Bill and for Larry, as opposed to throwing them "under the bus."

When someone points out things that are wrong with a kit and can prove it you you just can't diss him because he was the only one to point out the mistakes of the so called "experts" who wrote the article. Revell didn't nail it and Alan was right on calling them on it, and also calling attention to the writers opinion as being just that.

Point is if you like it build it, if you don't fix it or use it as a parts kit.

Vince Putt

73 nova hatchback owner

69 nova owner

[Zoom Zoom]

Gregg's reply was amazingly diplomatic and well-thought considering the venomous tone of that letter.

Put yourself in the shoes of the reviewer. He did a lot of research, he built the test shot to a high standard, presented it in a professional format both on the internet and in printed form, and then has some guy attempt to rip it and him and his credibility to bloody shreds. How would you feel about that if it were your work?

I stand by Gregg's reply 1000%. I also stand by Bill's opinions 1000%. Before I even knew about that letter, I had lunch and dinner with Bill this weekend, we talked about the Nova kit, we are both dismayed at the negativity surrounding it and other excellent kits these days. It's sad, but it's like we're seeing the fabric of our hobby being torn apart at times by petty negativity, and that letter was classic example of it.

I've built two of the Novas, and my opinions mirror Bill's. The kit's flaws pale in comparison to the joy of building it and the final appearance. Revell knows about the flaws, has fixed at least one of them, and any criticism needs to be directed in a civil and constructive manner. The letter was neither civil nor constructive, therefore I cannot take it at all seriously except as an example of how not to write a letter if you want anything positive to come from it.

[Harry P.]

It's important to keep in mind that any kit review you read is basically that author's opinion.

The review of the Nova kit that appeared in the magazine was the opinion of the author, not a "carved in stone" statement. Certainly there is room for more than one view on the subject...and the fact that Alan's letter was published in the first place should tell you that MCM tries to give equal time to as many opinions as possible. Obviously it would have been easy simply to not publish that letter... but the fact that it appeared in the magazine tells you that all opinions are welcome and equally valid. "Fair and balanced"... right?

[Bowtienutz]

Very true Harry

I'm sure that the letter may have found it's way into the round file at any other car modeler magazine.

[torinobradley]

I would have to say my opinion would be...

Just be thankful we have a new/better Nova/Mustang/'32/(Insert kit here) than we had before.

Basically, as it has been said many times, if you like it, build it, if you don't, fix it or don't build it. It all comes down to choices. I, for one, am happy to have another choice when it comes to a Nova.

In addition, for those of us that can't build a model unless it is 99.9% accurate but don't have the skills/time/etc, I am sure there are corrected masters being made or cast as we speak.

I build for the enjoyment and challenge. I build what I want, regardless of what others say about the kit. I have built two gasser style AMTs, one with a flip nose thanks to those separate front fenders, one pro street and have another still in shrinkwrap. I can't wait to build the new nova, just because of what I have heard about the fit and finish.

Just for giggles, I think it would be interesting to see just how many Nova kits each of it's nay-sayers have (built and unbuilt, new and old).

[Brian Huck]

I don't think it was. In fact, I think, I think Gregg is to be commended for standing up for Bill and for Larry, as opposed to throwing them "under the bus."

Gregg's reply was amazingly diplomatic and well-thought considering the venomous tone of that letter.

Good points. I certainly wasn't defending the tone of the letter, and I wouldn't expect Gregg to toss his contributors "under the bus".

[Brian Huck]

When someone points out things that are wrong with a kit and can prove it you you just can't diss him because he was the only one to point out the mistakes of the so called "experts" who wrote the article. Revell didn't nail it and Alan was right on calling them on it, and also calling attention to the writers opinion as being just that.

This is more the point I was trying to make.

[Brian Huck]

Brian,

Welcome to the forum and be sure to subscribe to the magazine so you don't miss out on any thing related to our hobby.

In regards to the letter / reply on the Revell '69 Nova, you are correct that Revell's new kits does have its flaws. Those flaws have been debated here and I would suggest you take the time to read through some of the posts to see what has been said.

While we would all love to have EXACT scale reproductions EVERY time the manufacturers' bring an all-new kit to market, reality is that it isn't always possible. I know that steps are taken to ensure accuracy, but sometimes things have a way of falling through the cracks. Some mistakes are inexcusable, some inevitable.

Oh, thanks for the welcome, Mike. My LHS holds all of the Model Cars and Scale Autos for me when they come out, so I'm set there. And several people here will recognize me form another forum that I've been on and off of for the last 8 years or so.

I've been at this for a LONG time, so I know all about the issue of inaccuracies in kits.

Just for giggles, I think it would be interesting to see just how many Nova kits each of it's nay-sayers have (built and unbuilt, new and old).

Just for disclosure, I've got one of the new Nova kits, and I'm not building anything right now. All of my hobby stuff (with the exception of a handful of kits I've bought recently) is currently in storage - long story. Regardless, whether or not a person has built a kit really has no bearing on whether they can assess its accuracy.

Edited November 11, 2008 by Brian Huck

[Lyle Willits]

Apparently Mr. Bohach was absent on the day they taught effective communications. Disagreeing with a writer's opinion and personally attacking their character are two different things.

I went back to the Oct. issue and read Bill Coulter's buildup article and Larry Greenberg's review. They both clearly point out the flaws in the kit and both agreed that the new Revell kit is much better than the old, multi-piece AMT kit.

Anyone who has been in this hobby more than a year or so would know that there is NO SUCH THING AS A PERFECT MODEL CAR KIT. When a kit has some minor flaws, here and there, a modeler corrects them.

Bill Coulter and Larry Greenberg have been writing for magazines for over 30 years. Dare I say, they may have achieved "icon" status in the hobby.

However, how many of us have ever heard of Alan Bohach?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Buehler?

That's what I thought!

[tabsscale1]

Apparently Mr. Bohach was absent on the day they taught effective communications. Disagreeing with a writer's opinion and personally attacking their character are two different things.

I went back to the Oct. issue and read Bill Coulter's buildup article and Larry Greenberg's review. They both clearly point out the flaws in the kit and both agreed that the new Revell kit is much better than the old, multi-piece AMT kit.

Anyone who has been in this hobby more than a year or so would know that there is NO SUCH THING AS A PERFECT MODEL CAR KIT. When a kit has some minor flaws, here and there, a modeler corrects them.

Bill Coulter and Larry Greenberg have been writing for magazines for over 30 years. Dare I say, they may have achieved "icon" status in the hobby.

However, how many of us have ever heard of Alan Bohach?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Buehler?

That's what I thought!

Why put done a guy for his opinion. He is on a list that I am on and did point out a lot of body flaws that really look obvious once they were pointed out. He also said that the AMT model is flawed but the body is more accurate. To me I don't care as I didn't buy one of the Novas and don't want one.

[dustym]

As an owner, I have had 3 novas, in the last 30 years. You know what, I think Revells kit is great. I didnt run out and measure mine to check to see how accurate it was or if the reviewers are wrong, I bought it to make a replica of the car I have. I have owned all 6 cylinders with bench seats, but I am not whining that they didnt do a base model like mine. I can work throught it. Maybe AMT's body was more accurate, I have bought 2 of those and never finished 1, but the chassis and interior are more than accurate. To those who dont like them, well sorry, but I like it, and I matter.